and the other hand, how many words do you actually used in everyday speech? you can't even believe those words. people so you might not on a thousand words in his 40,000, but other people say you might know there's no way of getting into your brain to work it out. don't believe anything like that i don't think. for one more. >> i'm interested in the administration of such a complex process. you're the boss. >> in the editorial chief. >> you hired and fired, did they come to your office? what kind of ended up in your office? >> let me remind myself. i started off as a steward of basic editor. i was given a bundle of index

cards in those days they had to work with the definitions can i research the history in conjunction with libraries. if he's got very difficult questions i will pass them on to them. so, you have to be able to do the basic editing and as you get more experienced, you oversee the editors, but you also have to do it yourself. i never wanted to get myself involved in administration in terms of running the project. if you're working on the led, you should work on the oed and demonstrate we have 75 editors working on the dictionary. they seem to be doing real editorial work so i always did that rather than spending my time in meetings. at various times i got more or less involved in budgets and things.

he just seemed to be happy to get on with the words. >> thank you so much for coming tonight? [applause]

>> i'm excited to be here tonight to talk about my new book, my first boat, train for. the first of many as most of you know, my name is trained to do. many of you know me as a political reporter for the arizona capitol times. i spent the last eight years covering the governor's office come in television in to the arizona political team. politics, especially arizona politics is a passionate night, but those of you who know me personally know my greatest passion is history. if you've been to my house come my house coming my house got me the same wall after wall of double stacked bookshelves full of history books and has always been a dream to write a history book. got the opportunity last year and the result is "if this be treason." i want to expand down which --

for giving me this opportunity to talk to. also c-span which is here recording this for the tv which is good because it also been a tree in been a tree in the mind to be on booktv. [applause] if you know someone who wanted to come but wasn't able to make you to make it or you find this so captivated feel come out to watch this again, it will be on the tv hopefully very soon. the original title of this book was almost treason and i think it goes a long way towards explaining the concept behind the boat. another thing that helps explain a little listener recently ended presidential election. i don't know if you notice that it is a contentious affair, the most contentious presidential election of my lifetime and treason was it treason was it worth it on a daily basis if you're in social media you heard being thrown around, apply to major party candidates commit to

their supporters. i wouldn't blame you if you didn't notice it was a low-key affair must have remembered her grace instability. some of the accusations were flying around a little bit. when people say treason, what do they really mean? treason is defined in the u.s. constitution as a war against the united states for providing aid or comfort to enemies. it's the only crime defined in the u.s. constitution and the framers of the constitution had a specific reason for doing that. under british rule, which they were familiar with commit treason was applied to a great many offenses simply used against people opposed to the government speaking out. and one of the cases i'll be discussing tonight for my book, there is a supreme court justice who under british rule was not only raising a hand against the king, but thinking the great thoughts about the king. we saw an example of the

constitutional convention. we mentioned the case and an englishman who would wish death upon a man. unfortunately for him that man turned out to be the king and for wishing death upon the king government even though he had no way of knowing who will bias, he was convicted of treason. they were familiar with the way the loss could be of use. they didn't want that to happen. the congress would not be able to change it. that is not start people from using the word treason over and over again. most of the time you hear it such a certain presidential election, and a political blog anywhere. most of the times you hear that. what people mean by that is they

are betraying the country. they are being seditious in some way. i know it when i see it definition of treason. there was one incident in particular that actually inspired this book and about to take credit for psi publishers came up with this idea and that may run wild with the rest of the book. you may remember 2015 just last year president obama was trying to negotiate a deal with iran to end the country's nuclear program. republicans are not happy with how the deal is going on 47 republican senators led by tom cotten of arkansas senate letter to the leaders of iran, warning them that any joke they reach with obama would need senate ratification and if they didn't get that it could be scrapped by the next president. if you've been following the news it seems that the pretty likely outcome at this point.

senate democrats accused senator cotten of violating the logan act which basically freelance diplomacy by predecessors. the logan act may sound a little bit familiar from our recent presidential election a few go which i know seemed like an eternity. donald trump made a comment employed the russians to release the e-mails and democrats had the violation with senator treason. begin failed for senator cotten is a good lunch and play for the discussion of this boat only because it is the inspiration that because the logan act, the law he was accused of breaking is the focus of my first chapter. 12 chapters plus an epilogue in as much as i would love to get

into each and every one of them no tv at midnight and i might wear out my welcome by then so will focus on a small handful and i'm going to start with the logan act. in 1798, the united states and france were on the brink of war. known as the class i work on the france is at war with a bunch of its neighbors in europe and trying to stop neutral shipping from sydney goods to it to enemies. unfortunately including us. they recaptured our sailors and were seemed pretty imminent at that point especially because congress and the white house under john adams were controlled by the federalist party. the democratic republican party led by thomas jefferson very pro-french and great antiwar, but they were the minority and other power was not a lot they can do about it. in the midst of all this, there is one democratic republic who thought they could descend it about it. he was in a congressman or anything. it is a philadelphia.dear named george logan. he was a democratic republican

from a friend of thomas jefferson personally. a quaker, pacifist, very pro-french. if he could get to france to meet with france's leaders, you might be able to talk them back from the edge and keep his country out of war. so george logan was a pretty prominent person in his day, there's certainly no one of the stature you would imagine would be needed to go and negotiate with a foreign country's leaders. kind of like one of these taking out a second mortgage to go to iran and negotiate a better nuclear deal. this is basically what he did. he spent his own money. he sold several parcels of land to finance the trip then he went to france and he was able to meet with france's leaders. he got an audience with the french director. by this time, francis in the

wisdom of walking things back a little bit. another war with the what they needed at this time. it's impossible to determine what george logan's real impact was, but the french certainly thought there was a lot of impact for his attempt to come there and make peace. he was hailed as a hero, guest of honor and became a celebrity in paris. you would think you would receive similar treatment for going out of his own initiative in trying to make peace that was most emphatically not the case. the federalists were outraged. they viewed this as an inexcusable interference in american foreign policy and by someone they viewed as very dubious pro from that basis while, they basically viewed the democrat republicans is kind of a fifth column seeking to import the atheistic world of the french revolution to america. they wanted to do something to make sure someone like george logan could never do this again.

and with that kind of the same as the logan act, makes it a crime for a private descend without authorization for government to correspond directly or indirectly with a foreign power over any dispute or controversy involving the united states. this has turned out to be pretty much one of the most worthless laws ever passed by congress and i know that's a very high bar, but then i decided in 1799 when they pass this. something like 225 years since it was passed, not a single person has been convicted of violating this law. that is the distinction belongs to a kentucky farmer. any team go through it, he felt like the political elites on the eastern seaboard route of touch with the rest of america and not paying attention to whether

american scenes. there is an upcoming presidential election under a pseudonym and a local newspaper calling for kentucky and other western states to secede from the union and form a union with the french territory to their west shortly before the louisiana purchase. the local u.s. attorney's office and decided this was in direct what they foreign country under the logan act. there isn't a lot kind of this flimsy from the start, fell apart quickly and never went to trial. so while the logan act is a penalty of $5000 up to three years in prison, the worst penalty was to become an historical footnote for authors like me. as it turns out, the only thing the logan act is ever actually been good for his violating the

past couple years with tom cotten and donald trump with accusations from the democrats. congressional republicans made a similar accusation to nancy pelosi for a trip she took to syria. the reagan administration make these accusations against jesse jackson for jam wright from a speaker of the house helped negotiate. some critics accuse ross perot violated when they were missing american vietnam come from any of this. as we see from george logan who had nothing but the best of intentions has no protection from being accused of treason which is very much accusation they denounced on the senate

floor as a traitor. he's actually not the only person in who found his way into my book for trying to make peace. the other was a man named nicholas trace. traced did not betray his country or government so much and he betrayed his president which is one of the same. there is no question he betrayed his president. he was quite open about this. whether he was doing this the best interest of this country is another matter. in 1847 we were in the middle of the war with mexico and at that point we had much far south of the country and conquer territory and james k. polk decided it was time to make peace an extremely generous terms for the united states. he and secretary of state james buchanan sent traced to mexico for a peace envoy. they gave him a set of terms he would have to abide by. the minimum polk was willing to accept which was a boarder at the rio grande river in texas and all the land we are standing

on here today and then a few other concessions he wanted to get but were particularly important and how much he was able to pay the mexican government depended on how much he was able to get. tryst seemed like a very safe choice to send to mexico. he was loyal southern democrat. he was a loyal subordinate to buchanan. he was second in he was second in command at the state department and a very strong supporter of the war which was very controversial. he turned out to not be quite as safe as president poke at it. once traced back to mexico, he was appalled by what he saw. he basically viewed it as an unabashed war of conquest and abuse of power by the united states. very ashamed of what this country was doing to mexico and so he was having some serious misgivings about the war he supported and he was supposed to negotiate an end to. at this time, mexico is losing

the war badly but did not want to sit down at the negotiating table. they were proud, wanted to find and keep fighting even though they were losing. finally they got to a point where he was getting desperate to get them to the negotiating table. there is a temporary cease-fire and winfield scott was on the outskirts getting ready to invade and wanted to stop this from happening and in order to get mexico to the bargaining table he started offering more than president poke would have been comfortable with. the harvard of san diego is her important to president poke but he obtained that and obtained that an offer to neutrals between the disputed borders. nothing ever came to this. word got back to washington and president polk and secretary buchanan heard about this and went through the roof. they very quickly concluded that sending traced to mexico was a huge mistake and recall them

back to the united states. return to washington immediately. by the time this happened, the prospects for peace had improved a little bit. a pro-peace passion had sat down and hash out a deal, didn't want to lose the golden opportunity. he was very concerned about what would happen to mexico. that's a very grand designs about what more they might be able to take. so he made a very bold decision and decided he was going to disobey his president. he was scoring to ignore basically a legal negotiate and bring an end to what he viewed as a very horrible war. trist knew he could negotiate anything that would resemble the fair or just treaty, but he could negotiate what would essentially be the trigger with mexico and stop with mexico and

stop and admire them for being taken and stop the country from being further dismember. it has to still be affected by poke and the senate to ratify it, but he could try to mitigate the damage quite a bit. the result of this was the treaty of guadalupe a hidalgo which was accepted by the president and ratified by the senate and gave us this land where we sit now. polk was furious but the treaty was good. he was basically too good a deal to pass up. they gave them everything he wanted basically. despite how angry he was with his envoy, he accepted it, he accepted it, send it to the senate and was ratified. at that time, as i mentioned a lot of people in washington wanted to go a lot further. some of polk's allies in congress and the members of his cabinet target thinking you could get a lot more out of this war which was a war of conquest. some people wanted to extend our

borders several hundred miles further south. they go up a lot further away from us than it will be now. some people wanted to annex the entire country. there's really no way of saying any of these things would have been. there's a lot of other circumstances and play. the whig party which was hostile to the war effort had taken over the house of representatives that included a one term congress and they were pretty keen on defining the war after and halting the war altogether. even some of polk's allies in the democratic party were so keen on taking more than. not out of any sense of ultras and publicity and the sheer racism. they did one thing that many new nonwhite citizens in the united states. it's hard to say which faction would've ultimate the prevailed if they had to fight this. because of nicholas trace of his decision to disobey his president, we never had to go down that road and have that

debate. several chapters in my ability on despite choleric comment being from a free speech and first amendment liberties. as a journalist, this is a personal subject to me. there's a lot of chapters that involve journalists not because i am one, but because in a lot of these debates where people are accused of treason, you end up in the middle and sometimes facing oppression from the government. but usually when we see this, it is almost always done in the name of national security. we see this to the modern day. the first time we saw this in 1798 with the alien sedition act basically passed for one reason and one reason only to crack down on the democratic republican press hounding the federal list. i have a chapter on not. the civil war when they can really crack down on defense and

the states. thanks for that through the story of a former ohio congressman who was leader of the antiwar copperhead faction of the democrats. lincoln exiled into the confederacy for speaking out against him. a lot of folks in the time sheet that is poetic justice. we saw it again in world war ii with the espionage act and sedition act and i brag about how that was used against victor burger, the first socialist elected to congress and was a major newspaper publisher in milwaukee. but of course no discussiodiscussio n of the suppression of free speech and first amendment rights and civil liberties in general is complete without an examination of the mccarthy era of the witch hunts of joseph mccarthy. when i started writing this poker researching it perhaps, i knew i would have to include something from the chapter. there was a lot to choose from. so many incidents that are

really ingrained in our national conscience says. think of blacklists, house un-american activities committee, hollywood 10 scandal, mccarthy witch hunt. but what i chose to focus on was something that is for some reason gone almost completely and remembered by history and a shocking to see how significant this is. that incident with the smith act trial which was a trial of 11 top ranking members of the communist party u.s.a. who are basically convicted simply for being members of the communist party. the smith act was a law passed in june for me that makes it illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the u.s. government and pass at the time to pass congress but mostly use during world war ii. once the cold war started after world war ii, things changed a lot.

by the late 1940s coming harry truman was under tremendous pressure from republicans who accuse him of being soft on communism and to rebut the charges he decided he wanted to make an example of communists. the question was which he was going to use and at the urging of jay edgar hoover and the fbi they settled on the smith act. truman could not have found a less sympathetic group of defendants at the time. you hear so much from the era were people who were erroneously believed to have communists were unfairly targeted. these 11 were just communists, very proud and public members, leaders of the communist party. they pretty much fit the stereotype the average american had to achieve. one of the defendants was eugene dennis suez the leader of the communist party u.s.a. and he'd been charged with sedition multiple times. he'd gone into hiding. he changed his name, lived in

the soviet union twice and traveled the world that the soviets behest in foreign countries. they had to leave their son in the country because the russian russian government said he only speaks russian and you will seem too suspicious to be taken back to america. like i said, not an extremely sympathetic group of folks at that time and perhaps that is why the incident has been forgot the others were remembered so well. the justice department had no actual evidence that these people plotting to overthrow the american government is violent force. but put their entire case rested on was the premise that the communist party advocated the violent overthrow of the government and by the communist party were inherently conspiring to overthrow the government. even that case is pretty flimsy, but due to a number of circumstances and putting overt hostility from the judge that focused mostly on agitation propaganda and deception in the courtroom, these 11 men were

convicted of violating the smith act. they appeal this all the way to the supreme court. the court of appeals upheld it. he went to the supreme court in it was not a close call. only two people dissented. they decided if these 11 hadn't been plotting at the time to immediately overthrow the government, they were going to get around to it when they could. whatever the earliest convenient time for them to do so is when they were going to spring into action and considering everything going on. this great geopolitical struggle between the united states and soviet union. these 11 men constituted a clear and present danger to america. as i mentioned favorably to justices into dissented. one of the basically acknowledged there is kind of a way for the a fair trial considering how people's passions were over communism in the soviet union at the time, but hope does he put it and call

my times the supreme court would come back and restore the civil liberties. those calmer times didn't come for a while. it is actually about six years and justice black's worst fear and six years very much came true. once the supreme court upheld his conviction, the department justice basically interpreted this as a starter's pistol to begin an all-out assault against the communist party u.s.a. it wasn't until 1957 the supreme court surveyed the landscape and realized they might have made a mistake and it overturned, start down as unconstitutional the conspiracy provision of the smith act at the time. in those intervening six years, 126 members of communist party organizations across the country not a routing eugene dennis and the original defendant had been charged with violating the

conspiracy -- after 1957 cents to imprison for a while through the the early 60s that the last defendant was in jail until 1962 when john f. kennedy commuted his sentence. interesting side note, it was struck down basically in 1957, but the smith act is on the books today as has been enforced in 60 years. if any of you are planning to overthrow the government, not talking to anyone in particular. >> i think that wraps up my presentation. again, i want to thank you all for coming. if you haven't gotten a copy, you can buy one here and at the same time you can support us in as the local bookstore. if you want to learn more about my book, go to my website, trent two books.com.

afterward i will be signing books. before we get to that, i would love to open the floor to send q&a. if any of you have questions about the book in general or any cases i've discussed or any of the ones i didn't have a chance to get to, please ask away. >> in your book, do you cover the john adams air when he was putting people in jail? he showed tension in franklin's grandson for printing a cartoon at a cartoon at it in the bag. >> that is after the focus of my second chapter, the alien sedition act and it focuses especially on franklin's grandson, and benjamin fred lynn and his paper the philadelphia aurora. the adams administration is the sedition act very vigorously several not the paper. he was actually dead is time that went into effect and probably painfully so. yellow fever got in before the

adams said day. the folks that came after him, some of them suffered severe consequences. >> one of the more current events you mentioned, i don't know if this is too attuned for the boat, but would he think about transcendence situation and how that winds up with historical examples? >> snowden is the perfect embodiment, the focus of the epilogue. his saga is still ongoing of course but i'm sure many more books will be written about it. but that is a perfect example. you hear the word treason is quite often to describe snowden. while he tries to sort that out, youth living in moscow.

>> the awareness has changed over the last 200 plus years. >> i think if we actually -- maybe we would use the term a little bit less frequently if we actually saw bill cases of this. there's one case case in the past 60 years. he had won in 2006. it was a guy who was doing propaganda videos for al qaeda, but that was the first one since 1952. it's a very forward concept and by now it is mostly something to write on blogs or sand cable news to denounce your enemies. kind of envelope when i see a standard rather than the standard we see set out in the constitution. >> what happened after the guadalupe that held all go treaty was passed a new web.com? were there any ramifications? >> nothing could have been.

unlike george logan, no one passed any laws from emerging, but needless to say what you got back to washington his job is not waiting for an admin is no government coming for quite some time which was that her hand because he's then the employee for about 20 years. for many years it was very task for he and his wife to make it, he and his family to make ends meet. winfield scott with whom he'd forged an alliance while in mexico actually petitioned abraham lincoln to give them a job come of the lincoln was not so keen on the idea so rode out the war and anonymously. it wasn't until the late 1860s when congress repaid him for the expenses he incurred while he was in mexico and paid him the back day he was owed bush james k. polk did not.

finally an 1871, somewhat around then, someone convinced him to throw the guy above may give him a job in the last for years as a postmaster for alexandria, virginia. the statues or anything. you anything. you'd would think there would be a couple. >> how did you decide who to include in this book? because i'm sure there was a plethora of choices. >> i did. i mention the free speech and civil liberties. i knew each of those areas that would have to find one good example and the alien sedition, the philadelphia aurora for that era, the her burger, the congressman for the era of the espionage act during the civil war and others, the logan act was kind of a given since i was

an all tendency that was inspiration behind the boat. the rest of them have to dig deep into what my fortunately large background of historical knowledge and it took me a while. i domesticate crossing things off and finally settled on what it felt like were 13 very fascinating incidents. >> do you have any serious thought of the logan act against nixon and kissinger before the 1968 elections? >> not kissinger, but there was briefly some talk of using it against nixon. very brief and a little background is another chapter in my book about richard nixon in 1968. he was very worried lyndon johnson was going to start bringing about peace in vietnam which should help his democratic opponent win the election. humphrey was gaining on him. nixon was conspiring to safely talk with the south vietnamese

and telling them to reject any peace overture from linda and john king. johnson found out about this and did use the word treason. he was talking -- and really talking to a summit on the phone who is an ally of nixon. if you listen to johnson's white house tapes, you'll notice that he starts a lot when he talks. it will always stand out to me from that research. lbj did consider using the logan act, but they did not fully have the evidence they needed to go public with that and not the point he decided it would be very bad for the country if the new president was coming in with this hanging over his head and kept it to himself. perhaps americans would've known better what they were getting it to have that come out. but they learned eventually. >> joseph mccarthy, that era and the name ray cohen comes to mind. did you write about him?

he it turns out was a big time mentor to our president elect. >> i did not. i believe he got mentioned only in passing because in this mishap chapter about the mccarthy era and have you no sense of decency, sir, the famous quote really only gets mentioned in passing. kind of a part of that area. >> did you ever see the assertion that bill casey went to france in 1982 saw the release of the hostages until after the election? >> i was one of the ones that was under consideration and didn't make the list, but that's a very potential logan act and i think part of the reason is the distiller but murky and there's a lot of evidence pointed to that. so a lot of people who believe that didn't happen.

william casey buchanan -- later became the cia terror and the campaign manager during the iran hostage crisis, but jimmy carter like a stone before he left office. that's all he wanted at that point is to get these people out at home before he left office. william casey might have played a role in planning the iranians to hold off because that would make carter look great just before this big election. they chose to release the hostages within a half-hour they didn't want to give jimmy carter for satisfaction whether that was because of tuesday's interference with her spite towards carter is still somewhat unresolved, but there certainly have been decades of accusations that william casey did that.

>> the constitution were to define treason, the following chapter has some weird language about the punishments, which i read right before he came here tonight. didn't look it up without corruption of the blood being what it -- [inaudible] >> out all that there's any limit on punishment. execution is kind of the ultimate punishment for a lot of people have been executed for treason. it doesn't have to be the death penalty, but there really is no limit on how far the government can do to punish you if you are convicted of treason. it is a high bar to set. you had to edit an open court or have two separate witnesses to treasonous acts and that's why this is so rare.

we've only seen somewhere around 30 cases where someone has even been charged in this country. >> how many people have been executed toto? >> i'm not sure. like i said, about 30 people have been charged in 225 plus years of this country's history. don't quote me on this, but it's probably around 18 or so have been conveyed to it. a lot of them executed, some of them spent their lives in prison. the last way was in 1952, he was an american of japanese descent in japan at the first time that works for a japanese company to use american pows as slave labor so he was convicted of treason for mistreating american prisoners. he was sentenced to death but eisenhower commuted the sentence to life in prison.

>> when american citizens are jailed for spying like the rosenbergs executed, they are not generally charged with treason. what law are they charged under? spin it very often.was the espionage act. they were charged with espionage. edwards noted was charged. i'm sure a lot of the other statues but there's so many other taking up arms against the country and stealing secret as often, things like that, passing on national security secrets of the enemy. the whole range of laws that cover a lot of these other things. >> what about daniel elsberry? >> i do get into heaven above. not a full chapter but i have a

chapter mostly about the "chicago tribune." three days before the attack on pearl harbor, the paper was very isolationist and opposed to roosevelt trying to push the united states into war. they got a hold of his very top-secret war plans for germany as an a lot of talk of these four short time of pressing charges against the paper and publisher. that also by the wayside a few days later. the administration had bigger things to deal with, but the last part of the chapter covers the pentagon papers incident as well and is a broader theme for the chapter of press leaks. >> just one last question. that one soldier that was blocked off with this post in afghanistan and held him for five years. a lot of people wanted him charged with treason because they are claiming he went over to help them.

do you have any stories where did you ever hear any stories in war time soldiers were summarily executed without trial for suspicion is a treasonous acts. >> and wartime on the battlefield within the ranks of the military. they do have a lot of latitude to punish things like that. >> treason -- a lot easier to use against them because treason within the constitution itself. the >> the high bar that is said for actually convicting and two witnesses to an overt act of treason unless a dead admitted in open court not bloody likely

in most cases. there's a lot of cases where it at least potentially could have brought charges were that ever happen. think of john walker lindh, the american taliban who was around the time of 9/11 had been fighting with al qaeda and afghanistan and was captured by u.s. forces. he was not charged and i forget what he was charged with. george w. bush at the time was asked about that and he rode off the possibility of a treason charge. some kid who got misled, i don't want to do that. he spent 20 years, but no life in prison, and those death penalty. could be worse. >> is the fact that the framers thought they treason had to be treated in a way means that all these other laws that created analogies, that are not give in

the same level of scrutiny if you will are inconsistent with what the framers intend it to be to have a treason in the constitution in the first place. >> that is a very good point is the obvious workaround that congress has found over and over again i simply pass different laws that are not for treason symptoms could carry the same penalties and have a much lower bar. even the framers of the constitution they wrote this on their own workarounds very early on with the alien sedition act which had the concept existed at the time probably would've been struck down as unconstitutional. a lot of these other laws have been. the espionage and sedition act were upheld it said that obviously. politicians are a creative bunch and they found no shortage of ways to get around the very narrow definition.

as one more chance and if nothing else, i would love to sign books. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will begin signing the books. if you haven't purchased the books, if this makes it a heck of a lot easier to get things done here. if he be so kind as to fold appear chairs and let them against the theory surface that would also be lovely of you. thank you so much for coming.